Economics bloggers across the Web are lashing out against “localization,” a movement based on the doctrine that consuming locally grown goods is the most socially and environmentally responsible way to live.

On Coyote Blog (coyoteblog.com), Warren Meyer of Phoenix calls the movement “sustainability through poverty.” All of the wonders of modern society are made possible through the division of labor, he writes: “A push to localize all production reverses the division of labor” and would force whole populations into starvation. Moreover, “many products, such as semiconductors, become outright impossible on a local scale,” he writes.

In short: If you hate modernity, then buy local. But if you want to save the environment without killing people, then you should buy into globalization.

“The energy transportation budget is generally smaller than efficiency gains from scale or from optimizing location,” Mr. Meyer writes.

Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek (cafehayek.typepad.com) notes that history provides us with a clear example of what “localized” economies look like: Think Europe — in the Middle Ages. The “era was emphatically one of localization: people consumed only locally grown foods and locally made clothing,” he writes.

“But paradise had its price,” he continues. “Starvation was common, as was death by plague. Giving birth was more dangerous for women than a game of Russian roulette … During the winter, some of the farm animals (all local!) shared these accommodations.”

Mr. Boudreaux writes that he was surprised to find that one of the leading proponents of localization is often identified with the so-called progressive movement. “Ironic, isn’t it, that ‘Progressives’ advocate a return to the economic arrangements of the dark- and middle-ages?” he writes.